Judgment :- 1. This revision is against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Karur dated 7-9-1988 in E.P. No. 528/1987 in O.S. No. 345/1985. 2. The petitioners case is briefly as follows: The first petitioner has obtained a maintenance decree against the first respondent and there is a charge over the properties mentioned in the petition. The first respondent has filed an Insolvency Petition and the properties have vested in the Official Receiver. The third respondent is the purchaser of the property sold by the second respondent, the Official Receiver. Hence the petition. 3. The third respondent in his counter contends as follows. The first petitioners husband viz., the first respondent filed I.P. No. 1/1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur. The third respondent has filed a suit against the first respondent and obtained a decree in O.S. No. 213/1983. The third respondent had executed the decree for the arrest of the first respondent and it was then, the first respondent has filed the Insolvency Petition. The properties have vested with the Official Receiver. The first respondent was adjudged as insolvent. The property was brought for sale by the Official Receiver and the third respondent has purchased the same for Rs. 7,500/-. The first respondent has set up the petitioners to file this Execution Petition to bring the properties which have already been sold by the Official Receiver, for sale once again. The petition may therefore be dismissed. 4. On the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif, held an enquiry and dismissed the petition. 5. It is against this order, the petitioners have come forward with this Civil Revision Petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would argue that the petitioners who are the wife and son of the first respondent have obtained a decree for maintenance and it has created a charge over the properties of the first respondent and even though the first respondent was adjudged as insolvent and the property was also sold by the Official Receiver, the charge created by the maintenance decree still subsists over the properties and the property therefore can be brought for sale any number of times as and when the amount accrues under the charge decree. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would also rely upon a decision reported in Sivagangal Ammal v. Jagadambal ( 1966 (II) M.L.J. 245 ) wherein, this Court has held that where the properties are charged under maintenance decree, the charge is not extinguished even if the property is sold in execution to satisfy claims of arrears of maintenance and the liability for future maintenance still attaches to the property. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would argue that the contention of the revision petitioner may be accepted if the charge decree has been passed prior to the vesting of the property with the Official Receiver. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, when once the properties of a debtor had vested with the Official Receiver and the Official Receiver, under the Provincial Insolvency Act, sells the properties of the insolvent by virtue of the legal rights vested with him, the Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the same in the absence of proof of fraud or collusion. According to the learned counsel, in the present case, the charge decree has been passed subsequent to the vesting of the properties of the first respondent with the Official Receiver and therefore, the same cannot have any binding nature on the properties. Sales by the Official Receiver under the Provincial Insolvency Act are to be treated as sales by the owner and it can be either by auction or by private negotiations. Such a sale cannot be considered as a transfer by operation of law or in execution of a decree and therefore, it does not attract the advantages or infirmities for the court court sale. The sale of the petition-mentioned property by the Official Receiver in pursuance of the adjudication of the first respondent as an insolvent, therefore cannot be attacked on the ground that there is a charge over the properties on account of the maintenance decree. It is more so, when the maintenance decree has been passed subsequent to the vesting of the property with the Official Receiver, There is no allegation of any fraud or collusion. The first respondent has chosen to file the Insolvency Petition when the third respondent has sought his arrest in pursuance of the money decree obtained against them. It is more so, when the maintenance decree has been passed subsequent to the vesting of the property with the Official Receiver, There is no allegation of any fraud or collusion. The first respondent has chosen to file the Insolvency Petition when the third respondent has sought his arrest in pursuance of the money decree obtained against them. Therefore, I am of opinion that the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that the property sold in favour of the third respondent is burdened with a charge and therefore, it can be brought for sale any number of times as and when the amount of maintenance becomes payable by the first respondent cannot hold water. It is more so, when the purchase made by the third respondent is not in pursuance of any execution taken by him for bringing the property of the first respondent for sale; it is a purchase made by the third respondent in the sale made by the Official Receiver with whom the property had vested. Therefore, I am of opinion, that the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Karur, dismissing the Execution Petition filed by the petitioners for bringing the property of the first respondent to sale is a valid order and does not suffer any infirmity to interfere with the same. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.